free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

edeangelis · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 25

yeah... that last post really didn't work out, there were supposed to be 2 columns, not just akward spacing. everything below the 2nd of the repeated number is the reason.

edeangelis · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 25

Round 3: (Rachel, Marilyn, I totally undertand if this doesn't count, because I did three today, which isn't allowed, but it's worth a try, so i'm going to rey to answer another question, and then talk about what I'm thinking about for the paper, and questions that I might have about Kant and Hegel. unfortunately, all of my questions, and notes, and underlines quotes (that rhyme was unintentional) are in new hampshire... along with my green "Art of Prediction" book. which SUCKS, because I can't exactly whip up there and grab it. However, Celina was sweet enough to lend me her book, so my questions will just be out of memory, and based more on re-reading than on careful thought. no one is under any obligation to read them. )

Question I'll try to answer:
Does anyone think that philosophy can be proved correct or incorrect, how so?

I'm not exactly sure what this is asking. It could either be saying:
Can Philosophy in general be proved to be an ineffective method in gathering knowledge?
or
Can a theory in philosophy be proved incorrect?
or
something completely different, which I am not clever enough to understand.
I'll start by answering the first question:

Can Philosophy in general be proved to be an ineffective method in gathering knowledge?

I think not, because even though not all theories are correct, philosophy is basically knowledge, and how people think about things, and if everyone thinks about things in different ways, then there can't be a "right" way to think bout things, and even if one philosophy can help people know more, and understand in a broader sense, then it's being effective. which means that it's not completely ineffective.

Can a theory in philosophy be proved incorrect?

absolutely.
ex: I think that I can reach up and grab a star out of the sky, if I hop three times, do a kartwheel, and scream "goobaleegoo!"
that's just not true. I tried it, and it doesn't work.

question:

what are some a prioris in modern day, for you as individuals? Can you remember knowing someone without someone having to teach you?

CelinaFernandezAyala · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 37

Much clearer, thank you Olivia.

And I get the whole cause and effect thing too, thank you Will & Liza.

And Tasha- I don't think a philosophy can be proven correct OR incorrect, for the very same reasons you mentioned before: it's personal for everyone. As for disciplines, each teacher has their own style depending on THEIR philosophy. Within the very broad spectrum of dance, once you get to something specific (ballet, jazz, salsa, etc) philosophies will STILL change depending on that specific style of dance and what the teachers think is appropriate for that style. I hope this answers your question...

We've been talking a lot about how Kant was a scientist, but I'd like to hear from some of you how his ideas carried to history. (This is a question, I swear)

arose · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 13

so after reading and reading and reading, ive concluded that A) you people are insanely smart and B) i might be in a WEE BIT over my head....which is really saying something.

i laughed at will's bit about the empiricist vs. the euclidean way of going about getting sick on bad soup. celina's point was one of the few i managed to grasp, that philosophy must follow the same pattern as History vs. history and Science vs. science. Philosophy is the discipline of deciphering HOW we acquire knowledge.......at least i think so.

and even though ALL of you raised questions and answered questions and this and that and etc. etc., i still couldnt find a nugget that helps me answer our TOPIC QUESTION.

now im trying to put SOMETHING down that will help some ppl out, not to mention help ME out. i think that you could argue that Kant is important to history because his philosophies altered the way we think about history, he gave men a new dignity that affected....blah blah blah. Hegel is important to science because his philosophies altered the way we approach scientific processes interms of acquiring knowledge from them.......blah blah blah.

i sincerely hope that 24 hours from now i will NOT be as confused as i currently am. good luck to all of you. and goodnight. see you tomorrow!

asteward · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 27

Hi everybody. I am a spaceshot with college applications due who completely forgot to post. So I'll try my best now.

In an attempt to answer Tasha's question on whether philosophy can be proved correct of incorrect, I have always believed that philosophy itself is a search for proof, trying to provide a true answer for the core questions that drive human curiosity. I'm not sure if philosopher's have reached that goal yet, or if they ever will. As of now, they have provided more theories than answers, and those theories can be proved incorrect in the search for the truth. In class, we talk a lot about what a discipline is, and I think philosophy is more a discipline than something that can specifically be proved right or wrong. As it has been mentioned, the dictionary states that a discipline is "a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education." Philosophy is not just a branch of knowledge, it is a continuing search for answers that opens up more questions in the process, questioning even the realities we live in. There are so many conflicting opinions in the world of philosophy that it cannot simply be proved wrong or right.

jmax · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 25

i was a little worried my question might be off track a bit but it seemed as though talking about philosophy in a big picture sense helped people clarify the history/science distinction, which is what i had hoped. As for the tree being a tree of knowledge, thats not what i had said exactly in class, i left it open ended but its great that people jumped to their own conclusions. I think in writing this paper a key issue will be the play between subjectivity and objectivity, but i just want to put it out there that they don't necessarily need to stand in stark opposition.

Free Forum